tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13215991583307097602018-03-05T20:43:35.652-08:00Realistic DefenseThrough the realist lens...Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-68157843279567138962011-03-29T19:05:00.000-07:002011-03-29T19:56:33.114-07:00The probability of spending cuts now...That is to say, not very likely.<br /><br />With the military operation in Libya in full swing, and a clear end game not in sight, defense spending is being taken <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52021.html">off</a> the list of potential budget cuts. The Politico article does a good job of giving some general opinions across the spectrum, and two quotes stood out to me.<br /><br />Josh Holly, communications director for the Armed Services Committee, is worried about "not being properly positioned to deal with the contingencies that might be on the horizon, whether that be a modernizing military in China or (a military action) in Libya."<br /><br />The Pentagon is already spending close to $700bn a year, and even halving that figure would allow to the military to 'deal with the contingencies that might be on the horizon.' The right amount of spending depends on what you want to do. A policy of global intervention and treating the Pentagon as a giant jobs program does require a giant budget, but if people realize that fiscal apocalypse is a realistic possibility absent serious consideration being given to defense cuts, then some headway can be made in reducing spending. It's about making serious and rational choices.<br /><br />We're also treated to the China bogeyman. Given the importance of naval power in the coming decades, the number of carrier strike groups is a good indicator for worldwide military might. The United States maintains 11 of these groups, China is <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/strained-ussino-ties-loom-at-asia-forum-20100722-10m0x.html">working</a> on its <span style="font-style: italic;">first.</span> The possibility of a <a href="http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm">security dilemma</a> with China is somewhat a reality, but we don't need to start planning for WWIII just yet considering the huge advantage we already possess.<br /><br />The next quote is from Sen. Joe Lieberman in his typical hawkish fashion: "Congress should be very careful and cautious about any reductions in defense spending, given the many profound responsibilities shouldered by our military at this time"<div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><br />The military is shouldering many profound responsibilities at this time, and it's strictly by choice, not necessity. We can't pretend that this mission in Libya is necessary for national security, just as we can't pretend that winning 'the hearts and minds' in Afghanistan is a realistic conclusion. Defense hawks like Lieberman believe in a false dichotomy. Either we garrison the world, intervening wherever we please, and have an unsustainable defense budget, or we completely disengage and become an isolationist nation. Reducing our force commitments and rethinking our global posture while still talking and trading with other nations is the sensible position, and unfortunately it's a position that seems on the fringe in the Beltway.<br /></div>Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-15085541922189694042011-03-26T15:10:00.000-07:002011-03-26T15:20:32.770-07:00Costs of the Libyan ConflictSome sobering reporting on the <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?page=1">costs</a> of the Libyan conflict at the National Journal.<br /><br />In a time when every financial decision should be heavily scrutinized and examined, it's going to be interesting to see how long this level of spending is maintained and if Congress decides to take any action. Do we realize that these levels of military spending are unsustainable and damaging to the economy?Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-4294968299882407902011-03-25T08:25:00.000-07:002011-03-25T13:26:01.302-07:00A Note on LibyaI haven't updated this blog in forever, but in light of recent events I felt compelled to start it back up again. I'm going to try and update it a few times a week now, or whenever something happens that's worth discussing.<br /><br />I just wanted to make a brief observation on some discussions in the mainstream media about the attack on Libya and Congressional war powers in general. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly authorizes the Congress (and Congress alone) to declare war, otherwise known as the 'War Power Clause.' Since the Korean War, instead of giving a formal declaration, Congress has given various 'authorizations' to the President to do as he sees fit.<br /><br />The problem here is I think this is a distraction. While no doubt the <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2011/03/22/from_iraq_to_libya,_obama_becomes_a_hypocrite/page/full/">hypocrisy</a> of Obama declaring an unconstitutional war should be pointed out, the mere discussion of whether or not the United States should get involved is disheartening. Had there been an actual Congressional vote, I have no doubts that a declaration would pass despite the fact the country is already involved in two wars and on the brink of fiscal apocalypse. The desire for intervention is completely ingrained in both major parties. A complete rethink of our foreign policy is necessary, but unlikely to occur anytime soon.<br /><br />Hasn't the United States learned by now that it is incredibly difficult to remake countries and turn them into liberal democracies? Iraq and Afghanistan are the obvious disasters, but even go back to the 1990's and the interventions in places like Bosnia and Kosovo. Nowadays, one is hanging on by a thread (Bosnia), and other is essential a narco-terrorist state (Kosovo). An important <a href="http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2591/Intervention.pdf">study</a> released showed that in US interventions since WWII, only 3% made a transition to a viable democracy within 10 years. And yet the US still walks into the same traps...Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-63827498082320178422009-08-05T18:16:00.000-07:002009-08-05T18:43:24.019-07:00A Resurgent Russia?The New York Times has recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/05patrol.html?_r=1&amp;ref=global-home">reported</a> Russian <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Akula</span></em>-class submarines coming dangerously close to US territorial waters, supposedly operating 200 miles off the coast. The <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Akula</span></em>-class is a tactical, attack submarine that does not carry ICBMs, but this is very provocative behavior to say the least.<br /><br />It's been well known that Russia wants to portray itself as a major player in the international scene, but I've always thought that the extent of the Russian threat really only extended to its old stomping grounds in the former Soviet Union. Whether you are talking about the on again off again gas wars with Ukraine, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">cyberwarfare</span> with Estonia, or an armed conflict with Georgia, Russia seemed to be the dominant actor in their region. But these latest actions represent a change in policy. With all the talk of pushing the "reset button" and what appeared to be a productive visit between Obama and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Medvedev</span> last month, these actions seem very strange. Of course, it could be much ado about nothing, but it's still worth keeping an eye on.<br /><br />These actions, combined with the <a href="http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090804_1075.php">failed</a> test of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Bulava</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">SLBM</span>, prove that the Russian military is drastically searching for relevance in an ever-changing 21st Century battlefield. With their economy crippled due to the low price of oil, Russia will have no choice but to scale back their military, much against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Medvedev</span> and Putin's wishes. Russia learned this lesson the hard way back in the 80's, and they will not willingly repeat the same mistakes. In the next few years, Russia will have to look for ways to achieve military advantages in the face of regressing defense budgets. How they balance that equilibrium will help to determine the security environment of the former Soviet Union as well as give us insight as to how well US-Russian relations will be in the Obama administration.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-17331653866398869122009-07-27T18:22:00.000-07:002009-07-27T18:45:10.455-07:00A Middle Eastern Defense UmbrellaSec. of State Hillary Clinton said that the United States would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/asia/23diplo.html?_r=1&amp;ref=world">consider</a> setting up a "defense umbrella" in the Middle East to thwart any potential attack emanating from Iran. The supposition is that the Obama administration needs to prove to Iran that it has the willingness to respond militarily. It seems that all the recent turmoil in Iran has somewhat shifted policy towards Iran.<br /><br />Extended deterrence is an idea that has been a part of US strategy for decades dating back to the Cold War. The US continues to provide a nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea, and under NATO protocol in western Europe. But would this be a wise idea in the Middle East? Is a nuclear umbrella even needed?<br /><br />The threat from Iran has, predictably, been overstated by many in the foreign policy establishment. A nuclear Iran would be balanced by Israel, whose military and economy are far superior to anything Tehran has to offer. Additionally, countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are all hostile to the rise of Iran, so why does the United States need to set up a nuclear umbrella? All of those countries mentioned have far greater interests in Iran than the US does. Deterrence works. Why are we to think that deterrence in the Middle East will be any different than it was between the US and Russia, India and Pakistan, and elsewhere?<br /><br />The desire of Iran to acquire WMD was completely predictable. The Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld wrote that after the US invasion of Iraq, Iran would be foolish not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Not only are there US troops in Iraq, but there are bases scattered throughout Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and other places in the region. Iran can be contained without an official "defense umbrella" being created.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-21474229414000948392009-07-23T10:05:00.000-07:002009-07-23T10:30:15.044-07:00Biden Supports Georgia in NATOIn a visit to Georgia, VP Joe Biden gave a speech at the parliament in Tblisi where he reiterated US <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8165617.stm">support</a> for Georgia joining NATO. The US has long supported NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and the issue became even more of a hot topic issue after the events of last summer. After the South Ossetian War, it puzzles me as to why this is even still being considered as a wise strategic move.<br /><br />What value do Georgia and Ukraine give to the United States? I suppose there is the argument that having NATO on Russia's doorstep will ensure Russian oil gets pumped uninterrupted into Europe, but this is a weak reason to rush these countries into a security alliance. In the case of Ukraine, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/world/europe/16iht-nato.4.13743215.html">most</a> of the country do not even wish to join the alliance, so we should not force a security agreement on the country if they do not want it.<br /><br />Now on to Georgia. I think it's a very persuasive argument that Georgia is exactly the kind of ally the United States should try to avoid. We already know that the country's leadership is willing to act in an irrational manner, as indicated by the attempt to recapture Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And if Saakashvili were to do something rash again and provoke another conflict with Russia, should the United States openly risk war with a large (and admittedly) weakened giant? The sane answer would be no, and I think the American people would be very hesitant to go to war in a place where our security interests are weaker than they were in Iraq.<br /><br />The future of NATO should be very subdued; we've seen it come under criticism for being ineffectual in Afghanistan, so I think very serious questions need to be asked with regards to its future as an organization. Do we need an organization to check Russian power in Europe? Not anymore, that need died with the Berlin Wall. The United States would undoubtedly be safer if it pulled back from NATO, and there was no longer an obligation to rush into war to protect non existent strategic interests.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-63395703212791887132009-07-21T10:14:00.000-07:002009-07-21T10:32:28.962-07:00Good News on the F-22Today the Senate finally <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_defense_spending">voted</a> on the Defense Authorization Bill amendment which would eliminate the $1.75 bn set aside for more F-22s. In a 58-40 vote, the Senate made the sensible decision to halt production on the F-22 after intense lobbying from President Obama, Sec. Gates, and Vice President Biden. Ever since campaign season, both Obama and McCain have been fairly consistent in challenging the defense establishment over unnecessary programs, but this is a victory in a small battle in the midst of a much larger war.<br /><br />Still too many expensive and unnecessary weapons programs remain. And the ones that are being looked at for the future (Joint Strike Fighter), are not necessarily the best equipment financially and strategically. The entrenched special interests still have significant clout when it comes to the defense budget, and we saw this in action over the fight for the F-22. Laws like the <a href="http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=313439">Levin-McCain Act</a> are a good first step, but I'm not quite convinced they go far enough.<br /><br />Until the iron triangle of Congress, defense contractors, and the Pentagon focuses on making the necessary difficult choices that every other branch of government has to make, the same problems will likely persist. We will continue to hear the same arguments that these weapons programs are integral to securing our nation, and thousands of jobs are going to be lost. It's the nature of the beast.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-65600329457647579072009-07-20T14:36:00.000-07:002009-07-20T15:00:59.568-07:00Boosting the Army & CounterinsurgencyToday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/20/us.military.increase/index.html?eref=rss_topstories">announced</a> plans to boost the size of the US Army by up to 22,000 troops. The goal of doing this is to ease the strain on troops who face constant deployment rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems sensible to do this, as we've asked <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">alot</span> out of our troops, but I'm wondering whether there are alternative motives in doing this?<br /><br />If we want to continue to garrison the world, then you're going to have to boost the army. We've been told over and over again that successful counterinsurgency requires massive levels of manpower, but I think the more convincing argument is that coordinated intelligence and police efforts are better ways at handling and stopping terrorism. The presence of thousands of troops in a place like Afghanistan is only likely to increase resentment against us. We don't understand Afghanistan, much like we didn't understand Iraq, so it's rather pointless I think to try and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">simultaneously</span> bring democracy and human rights while stamping out the Taliban and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">al</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Qaeda</span>. It's a fruitless endeavor, and we're likely to spend more blood and treasure trying to achieve the unachievable.<br /><br />I've got no problem with trying to help out the troops, but the best way to do that is to not send them into places where we don't need to be. We don't need the massive size of the US Army in Afghanistan, we need cooperation from Afghan security forces and we need to give the people a reason to turn their backs on extremism. We could easily reduce the size of the Army by 50% or more if we adopted a more sensible approach to combating terrorism and did away with most of our Cold War era security commitments.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-37392498730329332742009-07-16T14:18:00.000-07:002009-07-16T14:33:14.462-07:00F-22 UpdateIt seems the debate for the F-22 is reemerging in Congress this week. A vote to strip funding for additional fighters was <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwUuZcBraxbG6vVY0yvHTE31a0kwD99F57BG3">postponed</a> by the SASC. It still strikes me as odd that this is still even an issue, considering all of the supposedly influential people that are against it.<br /><br />I'm rather pessimistic about this issue, I think the specialized interests in Congress will be enough to put this funding through, and we will be left with planes that we don't need. As I've mentioned before, the high cost of the F-22 results in less training time for the pilots, something that you do not hear people like Saxby Chambliss mention. Air-superiority will certainly be key to future <em>conventional</em> conflicts, but can we really assume that it will be necessary in conflicts against terrorist groups and other sub-state actors? Fourth generation fighters should be sufficient in the conflicts we are likely to face in the next 10-15 years, and if more F-35s are procured (and I'm not saying it is the answer), then that should be enough to maintain aerial dominance for the foreseeable future while looking for an alternative fighter.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-20146144835340225862009-07-10T16:07:00.000-07:002009-07-10T16:40:12.284-07:00Trouble In Iraq?Today was the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-bombing10-2009jul10,0,6945821.story">deadliest</a> single day in Iraq since US forces withdrew from major cities. A double suicide bombing in northern Iraq killed 34, while there were also attacks both Sunni and Shi'a parts of Baghdad. Can we expect a prolonged campaign of violence?<br /><br />Even though US forces withdrew from cities, I think it was naive to assume that everything would be rosy and peaceful in Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi people celebrated the withdrawal, but there was always going to be a de-stabilizing factor- the various insurgent groups. That being said, I think the United States made the right decision to leave. These various insurgent groups will fail to mobilize enough support for the long haul. If a mutual understanding between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'a can be reached (and it doesn't have to be anything monumental or groundbreaking), then insurgents will lose the will to fight. If the al-Maliki government remains stable, then I think the pieces will fall into place.<br /><br />Also, I think it was a mistake to disband the regional security arrangements utilized famously in Anbar province. These groups can act as sufficient checks against the government's security forces, where there is already suspicion that they may have been penetrated by insurgents.<br /><br />It's important to let the Iraqi government and military work out the kinks and for the US military not to recommit, no matter how bad the violence gets. I have the feeling violence will perhaps intensify for the next few weeks, but will gradually die down.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-56267841240869624122009-07-08T15:22:00.000-07:002009-07-08T15:45:14.728-07:00CyberwarfareReports emerged today that over the weekend computers in North Korea <a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/146079">initiated</a> denial of service attacks against targets in South Korea and the United States. For better or worse, these kinds of attacks will probably raise many questions about cyberwarfare in the weeks and months ahead. Should cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism be a top security priority for the United States? What is an appropriate response?<br /><br />It seems most of the cyberwarfare attacks can be divided into either denial of service attacks (where a website is blocked for a period of time, but no information is stolen), propaganda (distribution of political/religious ideology), or cyber espionage (where sensitive information is compromised or stolen).<br /><br />The first two appear to be more annoying than anything else. They don't really pose any security threat to the United States. And remember this is through the public domain. What does North Korea gain if public citizens can't access the State Department's website for a couple of hours? Inconveniencing Americans, if anything.<br /><br />Look at one of the most well known instances of cyberwarfare, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Cyberwar">2007 Cyberwar</a> between Estonia and Russia. The only result of this "war" was the spamming of Estonian websites and denial of service. No deaths, no destruction. Why are we to think cyberwarfare should be anywhere near the top of our national security priorities?<br /><br />Cyber espionage sounds dangerous, and by all means, sensitive information within the government's servers should be secured using advanced technology. But government servers are going to have a higher level of security than anything in the public domain, so the notion that North Koreans, Chinese, or anybody else could hack into DoD and steal all of our nation's secrets is implausible at best. Much like terrorists acquiring and using nuclear weapons, there seems to be a lot of Cheney's "1% Doctrine" in discussions about cyberwarfare.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-25187238407494319932009-07-05T20:47:00.000-07:002009-07-05T21:21:14.995-07:00Obama Goes to RussiaAs President Obama heads to Russia this week to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-trip5-2009jul05,0,2206563.story">discuss</a> a variety of issues, the stakes couldn't be higher. Nuclear disarmament will be high on the list, as will other pressing issues, such as supply routes to Afghanistan, Georgia (where tensions are running high), and the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.<br /><br />The fact that Russia has allowed the US to fly in its territory to <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Russia-opens-route-for-US-to-fly-arms-to-Afghanistan/484935">deliver supplies</a> to Afghanistan is a significant olive branch. This was a contentious issue between the two countries, and the fact that Russia has essentially conceded shows a willingness to perhaps compromise in other areas. Perhaps Russia is not as worried about the US projecting power in the former stomping grounds? Or perhaps they simply don't have the influence and resources they once had, so they had no choice but to concede.<br /><br />The discussions of nuclear arms reductions have several different angles to look at; the missile shield in Eastern Europe and the actual size of the proposed stockpiles. I think the Russians have sufficient reason to be threatened and upset at the proposed missile defense shield in Europe. Like I argued a while back, the best way to reach a compromise is to do something similar to what MIT's Ted Postol is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/opinion/12postol.html">proposing</a>, which is to use specialized UAVs (which already exist) to neutralize the "threat" from Iran and North Korea. The missile technology of these rogue states is limited, and they can only launch from a handful of sites. This system poses no threat to Russia, who has far more advanced missile technology and an abundance of sites to launch from.<br /><br />With regards to the potential stockpile levels, I think this is a very superficial discussion. Reducing to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads is important politically, but it really does nothing strategically. Showing the world a willingness to reduce arms is important if we're going to continue to preach the benefits of arms control, but in reality, the difference between 5,000 and 2,000 warheads is minimal. That being said, it's important for Medvedev and Obama to update START, as this is an issue the world seems to be united behind, and we really can't afford to throw away opportunities like this.<br /><br />Issues like human rights/democracy and the situation in Georgia will also be discussed, but I think Obama should really minimize these issues. We're left open to charges of hypocrisy if we emphasize the lack of human rights/democracy in Russia, but continue to keep quiet over Iran (which I think is the correct course of action). With Georgia, Obama and McCain rushing to Saakashvili's side during the South Ossetian War last year was a grave miscalculation, and so was all of the talk about expanding NATO to include Georgia. In reality, I think it was mixed US signals that caused Saakashvili to make the decision to attempt to retake South Ossetia in the first place. The future of South Ossetia and Saakashvili really has no significance to US security interests, so the less it's talked about, the better I say.<br /><br />All in all, this next week will be vital to the Obama administration on numerous fronts, and it's an opportunity to make serious headway after Russian-US relations were fractured under Bush.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-38202031319884382282009-07-05T20:30:00.000-07:002009-07-05T20:47:11.232-07:00The Littoral Combat ShipAdm. James Lyons has a pretty good <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/05/why-we-need-better-ships/">op-ed</a> in the Washington Times about the current and future prospects for the littoral combat ship, one of the hot-button issues in today's naval discussions. Lyons runs through the familiar arguments against procuring more of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">LCS</span>, namely its high cost- nearly $700 million for the first couple of ships built.<br /><br />What interests me is whether or not this ship is functional in modern naval warfare. Basically, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">LCS</span> is a small surface vessel designed to operate in the littoral area (close to the shore) and perform a variety of functions- a Swiss army knife of the navy. It can be configured for anti-submarine operations, mine clearing, and the deployment of SEAL teams near the shore. There are some drawbacks though. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">LCS</span> was designed with speed and compactness in mind, and as a result, its endurance is only around 20-25 days. If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">DoD</span> is really serious about shifting to alternate models of warfare, shouldn't they be pushing for a ship that can last longer-something necessary to conduct naval <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">counterinsurgency</span>?<br /><br />I don't think it's been adequately addressed whether or not the existing frigates, destroyers, and Coast Guard vessels can handle the tasks the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">LCS</span> was designed for. Before we build dozens of these ships and deploy them as part of a new naval strategy, these questions, as well as the ever increasing cost, have to be addressed.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-29323309088683884742009-07-02T09:05:00.000-07:002009-07-02T09:50:06.982-07:00Escalation in AfghanistanThe United States launched a massive <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-02-voa5.cfm">operation</a> in southern Afghanistan this week, apparently aimed at defeating Taliban strongholds. This is a coordinated effort between the Marines and indigenous Afghan forces in an operation called <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Khanjar</span>, or "Strike of Sword." This operation reveals a fatal flaw in US strategy in Afghanistan. Sergeant Charles Marsh said of the operation,<br /><br /><blockquote>The combined U.S. and Afghan mission is to provide security for population<br />centers along the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Helmand</span> river valley and to connect local citizens with their<br />legitimate government while <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">establishing</span> stable and secure conditions for<br />national elections scheduled in August as well as to enhance security in the<br />future</blockquote><br /><br />How is this advancing vital US security interests? This is no different from any nation building missions of the 1990's. It's simply not the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">responsibility</span> of the United States military to ensure stable conditions for elections or democratic processes. Obviously we would like to see a stable, peaceful, democratic Afghanistan emerge, but history suggests that is a triumph of hope over experience. Indeed, powerful nations like the British Empire and the Soviet Union were caught in the Afghan quagmire, and both learned the same lesson: Afghans do not like foreign occupiers. The United States is destined to learn this lesson the hard way.<br /><br />Furthermore, why are we so concerned with the Taliban? Prof. John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Muellar</span> of Ohio State <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64932/john-mueller/how-dangerous-are-the-taliban">pointed out</a> correctly that the so called risks associated with letting the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan is not worth a long war it will take to remove them from power permanently. The Taliban isn't stupid, they're not going to let <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">al</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Qaeda</span> prop back up, considering that's what go them thrown out of power in the first place. They are merely concerned with their own security and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">legitimizing</span> their power within the territorial constraints of Afghanistan.<br /><br />If we want to preserve the security of Americans, the best way to do that is to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">de</span>-escalate from Afghanistan, not adding tens of thousands more troops like the Obama <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">administration</span> wants. War in Afghanistan is a fruitless endeavor as we don't understand the culture (much like Iraq) enough to stabilize democracy and advance our security interests. A compromise could be to leave residual forces in (special ops perhaps) to work in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">coordination</span> with the Afghan police to counter whatever terrorists remain in the country.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-91750535137866238032009-06-30T19:18:00.000-07:002009-06-30T19:49:04.600-07:00The Future of IraqAs stipulated by the Status of Forces Agreement, US forces have started to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/06/29/DI2009062903209.html">withdrawal</a> from major cities within Iraq. US forces will still be in the country, but today certainly represents a new day for the Iraqi people. While there was some <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063000838.html?hpid=topnews">violence</a> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Kirkuk</span>, pulling the troops out of Iraq is still the correct decision.<br /><br />But while the withdrawal is an important event, the future of Iraq is clouded with many questions. One of the effects of the "surge" was establishing Iranian strategic dominance in Iraq for the next 10-15 years with Prime Minister <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">al</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Maliki</span>. The US withdrawal immediately makes Iraq Iran's problem. With all of Iran's internal issues at the moment, this could present an insurmountable challenge for the ruling theocracy in Tehran. I'm not sure if this will result in a shifting of the balance of power in the Middle East, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on.<br /><br />The prospects of long term stability in Iraq is also a serious question mark at this point in time. Progress has been made to some extent, but one of the side effects of the occupation was rekindling the ethnic rivalries between Sunni, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Shia</span>, and the Kurds. We're seeing a similar situation emerge now in Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina, where the ethnic rivalries between Serbs, Croats, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Bosniaks</span> are threatening to tear the country apart once again. This is happening even in the relative stability of Europe. Middle Eastern politics are famous for their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">combustibility</span>, so the relationships between the ethnic groups will be vital for the future of Iraq.<br /><br />Where does the United States go from here? I think it will make the US more hesitant to engage in prolonged occupations in the future. Nobody is interested in repeating the problems experienced in Iraq, and future administrations will no doubt notice the negative shift in public opinion which has effectively ruined the Republican party in the short term. I also think the US will devote more time and resources to learning effective post conflict stability operations. The US lost the will of the Iraqi people when it had no plan after the initial invasion and removal of Saddam.<br /><br />But this is a seismic event in the history of Iraq, and it's going to be worth watching our the events in Iran effect the transition in Iraq.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-80446024724216299612009-06-27T13:45:00.000-07:002009-06-27T14:05:43.122-07:00Terrorism & Failed StatesThe United States has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN2649445">given</a> around $10 million in small arms and munitions to help the Somali government fight against al-Shabaab, widely seen as a proxy for al-Qaeda. al-Shabaab controls most of southern Somalia, and nearly all of the capital Mogadishu. War has engulfed the east African nation for years, and the US is no stranger to the country, having intervened in the early 1990's.<br /><br />I'm not sure that aiding the Somali government is something the United States should be actively doing. Officials in the State Department and the Pentagon have predicted Somalia as the next terrorist incubator for years now. If Somalia falls to radical Islamists, is the United States adversely effected? I think the whole failed states as terrorist havens is an idea that dominates most of the foreign policy establishment, but is severely misguided. Terrorism is a phenomenon that can exist in a variety of states. The liberal democracies of western Europe were home to numerous terrorist groups between the 60's and 90's, so it's not an occurrence isolated to third world countries. And while the United States has not had the same experiences of domestic terrorism as some other countries, several groups from Puerto Rican nationalists to Aryan Nations have been able to operate successfully.<br /><br />Look at Afghanistan. al-Qaeda was able to set up a permanent base for operations only with the help of the Taliban, which exerted powerful rule over the country. Terrorists need a stable environment, it does them no good to be involved in civil wars, as that only misdirects their energy and resources. We should keep an eye on Somalia, but this sort of offshore balancing is not likely to help either the Somalis or Americans.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-51582819369050663352009-06-25T15:00:00.000-07:002009-06-26T16:17:04.660-07:00The F-22 & ChoicesIt increasingly looks like the F-22 will be saved, as the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill <a href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/10mark.pdf">provided</a> funding for seven more fighters. The Washington Times ran an <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/26/hill-battle-for-the-f-22/">op-ed</a> that calls on Congress to save the F-22 program. It features some common mistakes and misguided warnings.<br /><br /><em>Debate has been vigorous, but the F-22 line enjoys bipartisan support and the availability of reasonable, unobligated funding options in fiscal 2010 and the possibility of production in fiscal 2011</em><br /><br />What funding options are the authors talking about? They've cried foul when other programs are in danger of being cut (see <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/zumwalt-destroyers-needed/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p14388.xml">here</a>), so what exactly are they proposing we get rid of?<br /><br /><em>The continuing development of advanced fighters and proliferation of surface-to-air missile systems abroad is increasingly placing American air superiority in question</em><br /><em></em><br />This is an interesting statement. What we have to consider is that due to the F-22's runaway costs, the Air Force has <a href="http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4212&amp;ProgramID=37&amp;StartRow=1&amp;ListRows=10&amp;from_page=../whatsnew/index.cfm">reduced</a> pilot's training to only about 10-12 hours a month. The surest way to put US air superiority in question is to rob our pilots of training, rather than procure more of the F-22.<br /><br /><em>Existing fourth generation fighters from China and Russia can already challenge our legacy platforms. Their fifth generation aircraft will be even more formidable</em><br /><br />Again, why are we naturally assuming that we are going to face China or Russia in an imminent total war? Our fourth generation fighters are miles ahead of anything coming out of China or Russia. And if we procure more of the F-35 (which I don't think is a great air craft either, but it is much better than the F-22), then that should be more than enough to deal with threats from across the spectrum. Having an imagined war with China or Russia drive our defense budget is a recipe for disaster. Do we want more conventional funding or more counterinsurgency funding? The hawks can't have it both ways.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-86835473968532180182009-06-23T21:33:00.000-07:002009-06-23T22:04:13.896-07:00More on the F-22 & Defense SpendingRep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who despite being pretty terrible on spending in every other part of the federal government, has always proposed cutting our bloated defense budget. Today, he <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jHdMA5CgNhX8hQIgLJSNGBUXby7wD990LM1G2">advocated</a> eliminating the $369 million earmarked for continued procurement of the F-22 Raptor, the disastrous fighter that has no relevant mission in the 21st Century.<br /><br />Speaking to the Center for American Progress, he said,<br /><br /><blockquote>I am of course struck that so many of my colleagues who are so worried about the<br />deficit apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money that somehow<br />doesn't count.</blockquote><br /><br />This is a pretty good assessment of the problems at the Pentagon. Neoconservatives have made it their <em>modus operandi </em>to criticize President Obama's spending plans, but continue to <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2286.cfm">want </a>even higher defense spending, claiming we need to be spending at least 4% of GDP on national defense, even though that argument is incredibly <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10209">misguided</a>. The F-22 is at the heart of this argument. It might sound over-dramatic, but I think the F-22 will tell us exactly where the Pentagon is going to go.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-3698784227051015252009-06-23T19:17:00.000-07:002009-06-23T19:28:37.152-07:00Pakistan and BlowbackThe <em>New York Times</em> is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?_r=1&amp;ref=global-home">reporting</a> that US drones have killed 60 people at a funeral in South Waziristan. If true, this would make it the most deadly attack carried out by a UAV under either the Bush or Obama administration. I've never understood how drone strikes were supposedly advancing US interests in Pakistan. Everytime I read something about them, there seems to be alot of collateral damage, resulting in civilian casaulties.<br /><br />I suppose the United States still hasn't learned the principal of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Project/dp/0805075593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245810208&amp;sr=8-1">blowback</a>. For every civilian or even "terrorist" we kill, we create 50 more. We've seen this happen in Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The US military doesn't need to be continually involved in Pakistan. We have a national security interest, as the FATA regions in Pakistan harbor terrorists, but coordinated intelligence and police efforts can better combat the problem.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-30564923634210236882009-06-23T12:00:00.000-07:002009-06-23T13:02:17.853-07:00Strategic Changes at the Pentagon?It's been widely <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/americas/23military.html?_r=1&amp;ref=world">reported</a> that the next QDR (which drives military spending, force readiness, and training), will reflect a shift in strategic thinking at DoD. The common assumption is that the military will have to simultaneously prepare for conventional, set piece battles with nation states like China and counterinsurgency operations.<br /><br />This new idea of "hybrid warfare" I think presents the United States with a multitude of problems. Part of this stipulates that the military has to prepare to fight more than two wars at a time. One lesson I would hope we have learned over the last 6-7 years is the strategic blunder of fighting multiple wars at once. The inability to focus on one conflict is likely to encourage missteps in planning and execution. This is typified in the oft-cited example of abandoning the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban to go to war against Iraq.<br /><br />We also have to acknowledge that the concept of "hybrid warfare" also is likely to continually drive up defense spending for the foreseeable future. If we view every failed state, rogue state, and emerging power as a threat, then we are not likely to cut our bloated defense budget. The structure of the international system will ensure that conflicts continually emerge, and military planners will want to make sure that the United States is prepared to deal with every possible challenge. This almost sounds like the classic "Dick Cheney Doctrine" where if there's a 1% chance that a terrorist attack will occur, then we have to treat it as if it's a certainty. Of course there's a chance that China could eventually threaten the United States. But it's not likely, even for the next several decades.<br /><br />I also thought this part of the article was interesting:<br /><br /><blockquote>But powerful constituencies in the military and in Congress continue to<br />argue that the next war will not look like Iraq or Afghanistan, and they say<br />the military is focusing too much on counter-insurgency and losing its ability to<br />defeat a traditional nation-state.</blockquote><br /><br />To a certain extent, I think this is correct. I don't believe that the next conflict will resemble Iraq. Planners and strategists will not want to repeat it. Aside from the usual neoconservative apologists who continue to espouse the greatness of the Iraq War, I don't think the common politician or citizen is really interested in occupying another Muslim country. But I'm not so sure that the next conflict will resemble this grand battle against another power either. Future conflicts I think will be predominately civil wars, border skirmishes, and asymmetrical surgical strikes.<br /><br />Since the end of the Cold War, we've seen hosts of civil wars that have lured the great powers into entering (the Yugoslav wars of the early 90's, the Somali Civil War) and ones that have been shunned by the international community (i.e. Darfur, Rwanda). I think this pattern will continue. Some civil wars will entice the United States into entering, and some will repel intervention.<br /><br />Border skirmishes are likely to be the most dangerous form of future warfare, though I don't think the United States needs to necessarily be involved in these types of conflicts. Remember, the geostrategic position of the United States is extremely favorable. I would consider the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006 and the South Ossetia War in 2008 as border skirmishes that escalated very rapidly. The two wars differ in context, though not by much. The Pentagon has looked towards the Israel-Lebanon War as a model for future conflict, but I think this is misguided. The one border problem the United States has is all the drug violence coming from Mexico, but aside from a few shootouts and isolated kidnappings, I think this is more of a problem the police, and to a limited extent DHS should be dealing with rather than the military.<br /><br />Asymmetrical surgical strikes, like what we see happening in Northern Iraq and during the NATO strike on Kosovo, are also likely to continue in the future. US aerial dominance will encourage this type of behavior, and I wouldn't be surprised if this type of action continues and possibly grows in Pakistan. It's also going to take some time for enemy air defenses to be able to successfully counter US stealth technology on a <em>consistent</em> basis, so not much will deter such action in the future.<br /><br />So, what does all this mean for the United States? Luckily, if policymakers and politicians are smart (and this is assuming an awful lot), we don't necessarily have to be involved. Civil Wars and failed states are not likely to threaten our national security no matter what fear mongers might tell you. And while border skirmishes can escalate into full scale wars, the United States is in a benign threat environment, surrounded by allies and weak militaries. And politicians <em>might be </em>willing to pull the plug on UAV missions in Pakistan if public opinion continues to nosedive. In general, the United States does have potential threats and adversaries, but fortifying itself in places around the world is not likely to make us any safer.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-33003742464992517242009-06-22T13:00:00.000-07:002009-06-22T13:24:30.176-07:00The Logic of CTBTLast week, Secretary General of the UN Ban ki-Moon tried to <a href="http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090616_2618.php">persuade</a> the general assembly to adopt the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty was originally signed in 1996, but it does not come into force until 44 nations sign and ratify it, and there have been some notable absentees from the list, including the United States, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.<br /><br />On a strategic level, would adopting CTBT make sense for the United States? Would it make sense for the other nuclear nations? I think alot depends on how the international community is actually going to enforce this. Persuasion is a very difficult thing to achieve in international politics, and persuading states to not test nuclear weapons might be a difficult sell. This is especially true when you talk about North Korea and Iran, who are more than likely the real targets of CTBT. But we already know that North Korea and Iran are willing to violate resolutions, as there is not much to dissuade them from proceeding with their programs. Sanctions don't work on an already isolated North Korea, and military action would be a huge miscalculation. So I think the effect of CTBT on rogue states is limited at best until the international community can find suitable means to enforce it.<br /><br />I do think ratifying CTBT makes sense for the United States. After all, the United States has not conducted nuclear tests since 1992. It's often said that in order to have effective deterrence, you have to be willing and able to use your weapons. If you have functional weapons but your opponent knows you won't use them, deterrence fails. Likewise, if you are willing to use your weapons but they do not work, deterrence fails. But every Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy for the past decade or so has stated that our strategic forces are operable and capable and will remain that way for a long time. In addition, the Stockpile Stewardship program (comprehensive report <a href="http://fas.org/2007/nuke/Stockpile_Stewardship_Paper.pdf">here</a>) is the right way to proceed with ensuring weapons capability without resorting to testing. It would be a tad hypocritical for the United States to be yelling at Kim Jong-il for testing nuclear weapons and then subsequently carrying out tests of our own. This is one of the issues that we can find common ground with the rest of the world, as most of the world wants such a treaty in play. After the numerous foreign policy disasters by the Bush Administration, finding this common ground is absolutely essential.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-47368875524180801012009-06-21T18:24:00.000-07:002009-06-21T19:25:46.355-07:00US & Russian Nuclear StockpilesDmitriy Medvedev has given his clearest <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/europe/21russia.html?_r=1&amp;ref=world">indication</a> yet that Russia is willing to significantly reduce its strategic force size ahead of the expected START negotiations. Under the framework of the negotiations, Russia said it would eventually reduce its stockpile to around 1,500 warheads by 2012 or so.<br /><br />Should the United States reduce its strategic force stockpile? I think there are a couple of important issues to address. I can't help but think that any sort of reworking START is blinded by Cold War era thinking. Russian and American stockpiles have a sort of symbiotic relationship; there's an assumption that both countries strategic forces have to be equal in size and scope. 20 years after the Cold War, is this still a rational approach to arms control? Why does Russia still need to maintain parity with the US arsenal? I suppose the rational answer is say Russia feels like it has to maintain the balance of power in Eurasia, but even saying that is Cold War minded.<br /><br />The next issue is what the proper number of delivery systems should be. There have been talks of eventually outlawing the use of MIRV ICBMs, and moving to single warhead missiles. I'm not sure how relevant this approach is; it seems more symbolic more than anything. Indeed, the reason Obama and Medvedev are probably proposing this is because they know that the diplomatic non-proliferation leverage from moving to single warhead missiles will be massive, and they won't really be giving up any firepower. This all goes back to the Waltz argument that there's not much more you can do with 2,000 warheads that you can't do with 250-300 or so warheads. There are warheads (like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb">B83</a>)in the US arsenal that have a potential payload of 1.2 megatons. This pales in comparison to the 15 or so kiloton bomb that was detonated in Hiroshima in 1945 and dwarfs the 1.5 to 3 kiloton bomb the North Koreans supposedly detonated a month ago.<br /><br />I think these talks are a fundamentally good thing for the future of US-Russian relations. I still think it makes sense for both countries to have a minimal deterrent, but in the current threat environment, it's now possible for both countries to work towards stockpile reductions. Hopefully these negotiations go well, as the United States desperately needs Russian support on a host of issues, from ending the war in Afghanistan to dealing with regional nuisances like Iran.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-36140175493620854112009-06-18T14:03:00.000-07:002009-06-18T14:37:35.738-07:00The Continued Saga of the F-22When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates rolled out his FY2010 budget, he made the call to halt F-22 Raptor production at 187 units. After all, the F-22 has not flown a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, having been designed to go up against Soviet MiGs when it was conceived in the 1980's. But yesterday, Congress went <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124525444995823693.html">against</a> Gates' demands and put in $369 million for continued production of the jet.<br /><br />There are two different issues to discuss with regard to the F-22. First is the way in which the military industrial complex is in full swing. Congressmen like Saxby Chambliss (D-GA) have been touting the F-22 as vital for our national security for quite some time, but in reality Chambliss' interests are much more self centered. The F-22 is primarily assembled at a Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta, and if funding was cut, then jobs might be lost. What Chambliss fails to address is that the cuts in F-22 are practically being offset by the increases in F-35 production, so these jobs won't exactly wither up and die instantly if production on the F-22 was ceased. This is not about national security for Chambliss, it's about jobs. But why should hundreds of millions of Americans continue to subsidize a plane that it doesn't even need? This brings us to our second point, effectiveness of the F-22 in modern warfare.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, the F-22 has no <a href="http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Stevenson%20Sprey%20Commentary%20on%20F-22.pdf">effectiveness</a> in modern warfare. Due to the runaway costs of the F-22, less money is available for the USAF to properly train new pilots. Any military aviation strategist will tell you it's more about the level of training the pilot has rather than what kind of equipment. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the IDF was 82-0 in aerial combat exchanges against Syrian MiGs, and IDF officials said the results would have been the same if the pilots switched aircraft because of the superior training. The F-22's sluggish size and poor maneuverability mean that it would struggle against fourth generation aircraft. The F-15 and F-16 have performed far better in agility tests. In addition, the "stealth" of the F-22 hinders its combat performance; all weapons systems must be kept behind doors, which negates the F-22's ability to engage in instantaneous engagements.<br /><br />Going back to what I said earlier, the fact that the F-22 has not had one single mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan is very worrisome when considering building more of these planes. What kinds of conflicts are we expecting to fight? As I've said before on this blog, the imagined confrontation with China or Russia simply isn't likely to happen for a very long time. In the absence of World War III, the kinds of conflicts the US is likely to get dragged into will probably be missions that are heavily dependent on counterinsurgency strategy. Ground forces will be dominant, with USAF and Naval aircraft more likely to be involved in close air support and bombing missions. Air to air combat will not play a dominant role, as our enemies either do not have air forces or have very weak air forces.<br /><br />The F-22 needs to be completely scrapped; it's time to go back to the drawing board and design an aircraft that can be both cost-effective and combat-effective. The US has enormous aerial superiority, and can use this as an invitation to design better aircraft in the time being. The F-22 and the equally disastrous F-35 Joint Strike Fighter need to be eliminated if we ever want to get serious about fixing the problems at the Pentagon and making this country safe.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-33084363121662779762009-06-17T15:48:00.000-07:002009-06-17T16:24:38.029-07:00A Shield for Central Europe & AlternativesDeputy Defense Secretary William Lind <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061603083.html?nav=emailpage">told </a>Congress yesterday that the United States plans to integrate Russian radar installations into a missile shield that would cover most of Central Europe. Currently, there is a radar installation in the Czech Republic and ground based interceptors in Poland. When the missile defense shield was announced in 2007, there was the predictable firestorm of controversy, with analysts pointing out (correctly, in my view) that the shield was provoking to Russia.<br /><br />While this new approach is certainly refreshing from the Bush doctrine of wanting the missile shield in Europe no matter what Russia thought, is it really the best option for dealing with the supposed threat from Iran or North Korea?<br /><br />Theodore <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Postol</span>, who is a professor of science, technology, and international security at MIT, wrote an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/opinion/12postol.html">op-ed</a> a couple of months ago that outlines a good approach for this issue. If there really <em>has</em> to be a missile shield in Central Europe, it might as well be one that makes sense strategically and technologically. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Postol's</span> idea is for a boost phase defense with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">UAVs</span>. He says,<br /><br /><blockquote><p>...it would take advantage of the fact that long-range missiles built by Iran<br />or North Korea would be large and cumbersome, have long powered flight times<br />and could take off only from well-known launching sites.<br /></p><p>The defense would have fast-accelerating interceptors that could home in on<br />and destroy the large, slow and fragile ICBMs. The interceptors would weigh<br />about a ton and could achieve a top speed of five kilometers per second in tens<br />of seconds. They would be carried by stealthy unmanned airborne vehicles that<br />look like B-2 bombers, but are smaller and carry much smaller, though still<br />substantial, payloads. Such vehicles already exist.</p><p>Only two of these armed drones, controlled by remote teams of operators,<br />would be needed to patrol within several hundred kilometers of a launching site.<br />At these ranges, it would be possible to shoot down an ICBM, with its nuclear<br />warhead, so that the debris falls on the territory of the country that launched<br />it. Only five drones would be needed to maintain a continuous patrol for<br />extended periods. But the system would have to operate only when satellites and<br />reconnaissance aircraft indicate that an ICBM is being prepared at the launching<br />site.</p></blockquote><p>There have been proposals for boost phase defense, primarily from the Boeing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">YAL</span>-1, which was slashed in Gates' FY2010 budget, but this one seems logical and comparable to the threat. Deterrence should be enough to take care of these rogue states, but in some wild scenario, perhaps a power struggle or massive internal conflict, and the nukes get launched, then a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">UAV</span> with boost phase capabilities makes sense. The fact that this technology already exists makes it appealing, as hundreds of millions of Pentagon dollars don't need to be funneled into the program; minor tweaks could make the system operational and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">deployable</span>. What makes this system additionally appealing is that it poses no threat to Russia or China. This way the US gets what it wants, it can tell the public that it is dealing with potential threats, while not threatening Russia or China, whose cooperation we need on a host of issues.</p>Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1321599158330709760.post-73541154701197947162009-06-16T10:29:00.000-07:002009-06-16T11:28:50.727-07:00More on Missile DefenseThe House Armed Services Committee is marking up the 2010 defense authorization bill today, and there is expected to be an <a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/az02_franks/NK_Iranian_BMDbill.html">amendment</a> that would restore funds for ground based interceptors, which lost some funding in Gates' FY2010 request.<br /><br />HR 2845 has some interesting provisions in it,<br /><br />1) Includes a Statement of Policy that Congress-<br />• acknowledges that North Korea’s and Iran’s long-range ballistic missile technology is improving and could be used to deliver chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons;<br />• expresses concern that North Korea’s and Iran’s long-range ballistic missile technology poses a real threat to the United States homeland;<br />• realizes missile delivery technology and warheads could be passed along to state and non-state actors; and<br />• supports ballistic missile protection of United States allies and forward deployed forces but believes it should not come at the expense of the protection of the United States homeland.<br /><br />The first point is pretty vague. By "improving," the amendment fails to recognize that North Korea has had a total of two long range ICBM (Taepodong-2) tests since 2006, and both have failed. The one in 2006 failed in the boost phase and the more recent one in April crashed in the ocean after a couple of minutes. As of now, North Korea cannot attach their warheads on their long range ICBMs, and this is not an easy thing to accomplish. Iran's long range capability (mainly the Shahab or Sejil class) can threaten the region, but it cannot even come close to reaching the United States. States do not acquire nuclear weapons to use them, they are mainly political tools, to <em>improve their own security</em>. The surest way for a country to put its security in jeopardy is to launch nuclear strikes. In addition, we don't have any indication that either North Korea or Iran has capabilities for chemical or biological strikes, that seems like old fashioned fear mongering, something the Republicans have become very adept at peddling.<br /><br />The second point I think really explains how inept our Congressional leaders are at talking about threat perception. It's quite clear none of them understand deterrence theory. Do North Korean/Iranian ICBM's pose a threat to the homeland? If either country were foolish enough to launch a strike on the United States, they would be instantly eliminated. Neither North Korea nor Iran possess any substantial military capability, and both have near destitute economies. Risking a war with the world's hegemonic power would have disastrous consequences for North Korea and Iran.<br /><br />The third point is interesting. Could North Korea or Iran pass along their nuclear weapons (which Iran doesn't have yet) to non state actors (i.e. terrorists)? The idea of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons has been one of the hot topic issues in national security since 9/11. Prof. John Mueller at Ohio State has done a lot of work on this subject, and I tend to agree with his basic conclusions that the likelihood of a group acquiring these weapons is getting smaller, and the technological expertise that a terrorist group would have to have in order to operate nuclear weapons is practically unattainable (for Mueller's full report, see <a href="http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/APSACHGO.PDF">here</a>). In addition, in several years when both North Korea and Iran could potentially have weapons, they are only going to have a handful. Why then would they want to decrease their own security by giving their weapons away to unpredictable terrorist groups? When countries proliferate, there comes added responsibility. For example, if the United States was the victim of a terrorist nuclear attack tomorrow, Iran would not be suspected, because they do not have nuclear weapons. But in 4-5 years, Iran would no doubt be at the top of a very short list of suspects.<br /><br />The fourth and final point seems to fail to understand the necessary defense choices we are going to have to make in the next several years. At some point we are going to have to cut spending. In the post 9/11 climate of fear, any reduction in defense spending (whether or not that spending actually aids in the fight against terrorism) is seen as a sign of weakness. I would prefer that the troops come home from Afghanistan immediately as I think it's turned into a state building exercise, but if they are going to be there, we have to make sure they have the tools they need. This means we have to make some tough choices. Gates and DoD have correctly (in my opinion) identified that the threat of North Korea and Iran has been exaggerated, and we can reduce missile defense funding, because it just isn't practical now.Stevenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11914159469699516276noreply@blogger.com0